you know, in the debate between mitt romney and barack obama, obama laid out this notion that somehow romney was not in favor of any more revenues and romney debunked that and said, look, we're in favor of revenues, and i think he was largely speaking for the republican party at that point. we're in favor of more revenues. the ryan budget, for example, had revenue assumptions in it. so i think what's got to happen is that both sides have to let the other team take a victory lap. let republicans come into this debate where we keep tax rates low and reasonable and predictable and drive toward tax reform next year. democrats can come into the debate and claim a victory and say, well, we're interested in more revenues. the key is, can we get to these underlying situations and that is entitlement reform. that's where the action is. >> okay. but how realistic is it to postpone or extend everything for a year? as i understand it, this was in the "wall street journal" editorial page this morning and i've heard this elsewhere, that mr. boehner would like to just extend the tax cuts and i don't